Speaker should not pre-empt debate on pay cut motion, says Ababu Namwamba

Budalang'i MP Ababu Namwamba has responded to National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi’s criticism of his 50 per cent pay cut motion for MPs, accusing him of bias.

In a statement sent from New York, Mr Namwamba said as Speaker of the House, Mr Muturi should be impartial and act as an arbiter and not in prejudice.

“The Speaker is the ultimate arbiter in debates in the House. Like the blindfolded Justice Manequin in classical Greeko-Roman tradition, he must hear all impartially, without "seeing" the shade or hue of the debater,” he said.

“When Mr Speaker purports to pre-empt debate, to prematurely and casually pass a verdict either way outside the House, he shames the dignity of his office, compromises the authority of the House and defiles the sanctity of legislation,” he said.

The ODM secretary-general defended his planned motion, saying the aim is to trigger a comprehensive review and harmonisation of Kenya's "grotesquely imbalanced and inequitable public wage structure", which he called unsustainably burdensome and pitting the rich against the poor.

(READ: Speaker, MPs reject Ababu pay cut plan)

REACTIONS

Mr Namwamba’s suggestion that MPs’ pay be reduced by half has not been received well by his colleagues.

A section of Kenyans, including the National Assembly Speaker, have also called it a populist act.

Mr Muturi poked holes in Mr Namwamba’s motion, which he called unrealistic and meant to excite teachers.

He said the measure proposed would be unsustainable as it was more of a philanthropic act.

Further, he argued that Parliament has no role to play in pay matters, which are a preserve of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission.

However, Mr Namwamba, who is also the chairman of Accountability Kenya, said "populist" or not, his was a just, moral, noble and timely mission.

“It is apparent that many who have rushed to oppose this motion have not taken time to appreciate its full import.

“By passing the motion, Parliament will not be usurping the role of effecting the changes in public service remuneration.

“No. Parliament will have 'spoken' as the national voice of citizens, the collective conscience of the nation,” he said.

He argued that relevant institutions would thereafter be forced to make the desired changes and Parliament would be required to enact the necessary enabling legislation, which will include a number of constitutional amendments.